|
>>
|
No. 59107
>>59090
Haha no. You can pull that shit for words like "theory" which is used differently in academic contexts and in regular speech by people generally ignorant to its "real" meaning (which you did just now, actually), but Mary-Sue is a bullshit literary term not used by anyone except for the unwashed masses. It's not the supposed definition that counts, it's how people actually use it. In the case of Mary-Sue, the usage differs from the "official" definition. The usage is a general insult. My, yes, you are a true scholar for sticking to the oldest definition of Mary-Sue possible, but unfortunately that doesn't actually matter. And if my experience in the matter has anything to say about it, you will still probably misuse the term under your own damn definition.
This is also a concept that cripples a fuckton of beginning writers for years. You know how some kids start up drawing moe anime shit without trying to learn how to draw the real human body or how to convey movement or emotion, and then struggle years later trying to get out of it? It's like that. It's like that, but the framework they're going off of is a really, really stupid idea of character flaws and virtues, where if there are too much of either their character will be the Dreaded Mary-Sue. It becomes more of a game of balance than anything else, and the outcome is almost invariably a boring-ass character not even the author really gives a fuck about. You can always tell who came from that sort of background because most of them talk about how they don't feel anything for their own, how lackluster they are, and how they don't know how to fix it. They also sometimes have "secret" characters they really love but are too afraid to show to the public, because they fear those characters are Mary-Sues for being interesting. It's just a really, really bad way to design and write, and it's even worse because of the confusion surrounding the term.
Don't use it, thanks in advance.
>>59100
I don't know how anything she says contradicts anything. I don't know how you could think that either, considering Coela's opener is this:
> the term “Mary Sue” or “Gary Stu” is being thrown around awfully liberally these days. As much as “hipster” seems to mean “young adult who wears clothing”, all it seems to take for a character to rack up accusations of being a wish-fulfillment mouthpiece device is to be the same gender as the writer, be notably talented at anything, or be likeable in any way.
Wow, that is sure an accurate summary of the thing I just said!
Also note that this is a general essay about relatability of characters, not Mary-Sues, no matter what its title is. That makes it a good resource, because it's not trying to define an undefinable set of characteristics and then break the definition down into smaller pieces to "avoid." It's clear and informative because she is not hung up on Mary-Sues or what they are; she doesn't even really discuss the term. She discusses what makes good characters good, and why the balancing method of creating characters people get stuck in doesn't work.
|
